The 2016 Democrat National Convention

[Danny Bateman]

This DNC email thing is a mess. DWS has handled it terribly from the start and she got her walking papers. Clean out the idiot that made that email about Bernie's religion, too, and anyone else producing anything else as offensive. Let's reboot and try again.

 

But let's lay out a few undeniable facts about this situation:

 

• This is what happens when you peel back the curtain on politics. The ones saying the RNC would have similar inner workings are exactly right. These nasty, tooth and nail, inside baseball type of tactics are commonplace in cutthroat politics, most of us just don't think about it most of the time.
• The Democratic party had reason to want HRC to win instead of Bernie. That's not to say that they should have done this, of course-- they should be a neutral arbiter. But that they preferred a candidate should surprise no one.
• Zoogs is right-- in our system, primary voting is worth about a plugged nickel, since the parties make the rules and they can select their nominee at will. General elections is where votes ultimately always matter.
• Bernie didn't lose because democracy was subverted, or it was ripped away from him, or anything else along those lines. He lost because he appealed to too narrow a slice of Americans, and in particular could not appeal to minorities, which is key for Democrats. That said, that this went on was sh**ty and his supporters are right to be aggrieved right now. To his own credit, Bernie himself let it go because he can see the endgame.

And finally, who's really going to vote on the DWS-DNC email scandal in the fall? Anyone? This will be a blip by then. Maybe some Sanders supporters, but they likely weren't in her corner before this anyway.

[HuskerNation1]

 

Perhaps Bill Clinton will change things tonight, but it appears that the Democratic party has lost touch with reality. Last week Obama gave a speech that stated that there is not that much violence or terrorism going on in the world right now, and what was stated at the RNC doesn't jive with the American people. Then yesterday in the first day of the DNC, there were 61 speeches, and not a single speech mentioned the words ISIS once. How does that happen? And now tonight the Dems are making a big push for Black Lives Matter including bringing Michael Brown's mom on stage...her son was shown to have been taking aggressive actions toward law enforcement, yet the Dems continue to push the narrative that the cops are bad. I am sure there are better examples of where it was 100% certain the cop was in the wrong, yet they are bringing up this toxic Ferguson racial incident to help get their black voters energized. I really don't know what the Democratic party stands for anymore.

 

Let's not equate these mothers coming on stage and pleading for less death and more togetherness with pushing a "cops are bad" narrative.

 

 

Why not bring out several members of law enforcement at the same time?

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Perhaps Bill Clinton will change things tonight, but it appears that the Democratic party has lost touch with reality. Last week Obama gave a speech that stated that there is not that much violence or terrorism going on in the world right now, and what was stated at the RNC doesn't jive with the American people. Then yesterday in the first day of the DNC, there were 61 speeches, and not a single speech mentioned the words ISIS once. How does that happen? And now tonight the Dems are making a big push for Black Lives Matter including bringing Michael Brown's mom on stage...her son was shown to have been taking aggressive actions toward law enforcement, yet the Dems continue to push the narrative that the cops are bad. I am sure there are better examples of where it was 100% certain the cop was in the wrong, yet they are bringing up this toxic Ferguson racial incident to help get their black voters energized. I really don't know what the Democratic party stands for anymore.

 

Let's not equate these mothers coming on stage and pleading for less death and more togetherness with pushing a "cops are bad" narrative.

 

 

Why not bring out several members of law enforcement at the same time?

 

 

That's exactly what I would've done. She had a Democratic police chief speak shortly before them.

 

Someone mentioned this after they spoke. We really need someone bringing both sides together instead of it always being an either-or proposition.

[zoogs]

I wonder if we can't have a runoff election with a larger number of candidates from different parties + independents -- let the parties make their decisions internally -- where everyone gets to pick a couple of their top choices, and then winnow the field down to 4.

 

I also really do like the British way. One body of legislature (I think?), a bunch of parties although two main ones, and the party with the most seats more or less chooses the Prime Minister. The opposition party forms a Shadow Cabinet. Etc, etc. Mind-numbingly shortsided referendums aside, it's a good system.

 

It's not clear to me that most of us haven't come to regard the presidency as something closer to a kingship. A celebrity pal, face of the nation, and reflection of our personal values and not simply a minister voted to head the government bureaucracy for a spell.

[HuskerNation1]

This DNC email thing is a mess. DWS has handled it terribly from the start and she got her walking papers. Clean out the idiot that made that email about Bernie's religion, too, and anyone else producing anything else as offensive. Let's reboot and try again.

 

But let's lay out a few undeniable facts about this situation:

 

• This is what happens when you peel back the curtain on politics. The ones saying the RNC would have similar inner workings are exactly right. These nasty, tooth and nail, inside baseball type of tactics are commonplace in cutthroat politics, most of us just don't think about it most of the time.
• The Democratic party had reason to want HRC to win instead of Bernie. That's not to say that they should have done this, of course-- they should be a neutral arbiter. But that they preferred a candidate should surprise no one.
• Zoogs is right-- in our system, primary voting is worth about a plugged nickel, since the parties make the rules and they can select their nominee at will. General elections is where votes ultimately always matter.
• Bernie didn't lose because democracy was subverted, or it was ripped away from him, or anything else along those lines. He lost because he appealed to too narrow a slice of Americans, and in particular could not appeal to minorities, which is key for Democrats. That said, that this went on was sh**ty and his supporters are right to be aggrieved right now. To his own credit, Bernie himself let it go because he can see the endgame.

And finally, who's really going to vote on the DWS-DNC email scandal in the fall? Anyone? This will be a blip by then. Maybe some Sanders supporters, but they likely weren't in her corner before this anyway.

 

Wow, nice try at spinning this as not being a huge deal. That seems to be the common response for anything that Hillary or the DNC is doing wrong..."well, they all do it" seems to be the canned response. There is no way of knowing how different the Democratic primaries would have turned out had Hillary not been pushed by the DNC from the get go. Despite being behind nearly 600 delegates (via Superdelegates) before the first state even voted, Bernie was very close up until the end. This will make a huge impact this fall as Bernie received close to half of all votes in the Democratic primaries. While a good number of his supporters will end up supporting Hillary, a good number will not and will either vote for Trump, Johnson, Stein, or stay home. The larger that group that chooses to not support Hillary, the bigger impact it will have in November.

 

And let's not forget one key factor in this rigged DNC mess...DWS spearheaded all of this and left her post, BUT the HIllary campaign immediately moved to hire her and put her in a key role for the fall campaign. How is her presence as part of HIllary's campaign going to make many Bernie Sanders want to rush to join Team Hillary.

[Danny Bateman]

 

This DNC email thing is a mess. DWS has handled it terribly from the start and she got her walking papers. Clean out the idiot that made that email about Bernie's religion, too, and anyone else producing anything else as offensive. Let's reboot and try again.

 

But let's lay out a few undeniable facts about this situation:

 

• This is what happens when you peel back the curtain on politics. The ones saying the RNC would have similar inner workings are exactly right. These nasty, tooth and nail, inside baseball type of tactics are commonplace in cutthroat politics, most of us just don't think about it most of the time.
• The Democratic party had reason to want HRC to win instead of Bernie. That's not to say that they should have done this, of course-- they should be a neutral arbiter. But that they preferred a candidate should surprise no one.
• Zoogs is right-- in our system, primary voting is worth about a plugged nickel, since the parties make the rules and they can select their nominee at will. General elections is where votes ultimately always matter.
• Bernie didn't lose because democracy was subverted, or it was ripped away from him, or anything else along those lines. He lost because he appealed to too narrow a slice of Americans, and in particular could not appeal to minorities, which is key for Democrats. That said, that this went on was sh**ty and his supporters are right to be aggrieved right now. To his own credit, Bernie himself let it go because he can see the endgame.

And finally, who's really going to vote on the DWS-DNC email scandal in the fall? Anyone? This will be a blip by then. Maybe some Sanders supporters, but they likely weren't in her corner before this anyway.

 

Wow, nice try at spinning this as not being a huge deal. That seems to be the common response for anything that Hillary or the DNC is doing wrong..."well, they all do it" seems to be the canned response. There is no way of knowing how different the Democratic primaries would have turned out had Hillary not been pushed by the DNC from the get go. Despite being behind nearly 600 delegates (via Superdelegates) before the first state even voted, Bernie was very close up until the end. This will make a huge impact this fall as Bernie received close to half of all votes in the Democratic primaries. While a good number of his supporters will end up supporting Hillary, a good number will not and will either vote for Trump, Johnson, Stein, or stay home. The larger that group that chooses to not support Hillary, the bigger impact it will have in November.

 

And let's not forget one key factor in this rigged DNC mess...DWS spearheaded all of this and left her post, BUT the HIllary campaign immediately moved to hire her and put her in a key role for the fall campaign. How is her presence as part of HIllary's campaign going to make many Bernie Sanders want to rush to join Team Hillary.

 

 

As of yesterday, I think I saw that 5% of those Bernie voters will vote for Trump.

 

The diehards can do what they will. Bernie won 13 million some votes in the primary. Winning a general generally portends 60 or 70 million. If you add ALL of his voters to her 16 million votes, she's not even halfway there. She's not winning this election on the backs of Sanders voters anyway you slice it. The election is won elsewhere.

 

I don't get the optics of appointing DWS to an honorary (likely cushy do-nothing) position. But I doubt it's a key position. They can't be politically dumb enough to give her any kind of public visibility after all of this.

 

But I stand by my assertion. I feel awful for Bernie about all of this. It's wrong and it stinks. I can't stand DWS. But he ran the weaker campaign and he lost, accordingly. And no, I still don't think this drastically changes anything come November.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

This DNC email thing is a mess. DWS has handled it terribly from the start and she got her walking papers. Clean out the idiot that made that email about Bernie's religion, too, and anyone else producing anything else as offensive. Let's reboot and try again.

 

But let's lay out a few undeniable facts about this situation:

 

• This is what happens when you peel back the curtain on politics. The ones saying the RNC would have similar inner workings are exactly right. These nasty, tooth and nail, inside baseball type of tactics are commonplace in cutthroat politics, most of us just don't think about it most of the time.
• The Democratic party had reason to want HRC to win instead of Bernie. That's not to say that they should have done this, of course-- they should be a neutral arbiter. But that they preferred a candidate should surprise no one.
• Zoogs is right-- in our system, primary voting is worth about a plugged nickel, since the parties make the rules and they can select their nominee at will. General elections is where votes ultimately always matter.
• Bernie didn't lose because democracy was subverted, or it was ripped away from him, or anything else along those lines. He lost because he appealed to too narrow a slice of Americans, and in particular could not appeal to minorities, which is key for Democrats. That said, that this went on was sh**ty and his supporters are right to be aggrieved right now. To his own credit, Bernie himself let it go because he can see the endgame.

And finally, who's really going to vote on the DWS-DNC email scandal in the fall? Anyone? This will be a blip by then. Maybe some Sanders supporters, but they likely weren't in her corner before this anyway.

 

Wow, nice try at spinning this as not being a huge deal. That seems to be the common response for anything that Hillary or the DNC is doing wrong..."well, they all do it" seems to be the canned response. There is no way of knowing how different the Democratic primaries would have turned out had Hillary not been pushed by the DNC from the get go. Despite being behind nearly 600 delegates (via Superdelegates) before the first state even voted, Bernie was very close up until the end. This will make a huge impact this fall as Bernie received close to half of all votes in the Democratic primaries. While a good number of his supporters will end up supporting Hillary, a good number will not and will either vote for Trump, Johnson, Stein, or stay home. The larger that group that chooses to not support Hillary, the bigger impact it will have in November.

 

And let's not forget one key factor in this rigged DNC mess...DWS spearheaded all of this and left her post, BUT the HIllary campaign immediately moved to hire her and put her in a key role for the fall campaign. How is her presence as part of HIllary's campaign going to make many Bernie Sanders want to rush to join Team Hillary.

 

 

As of yesterday, I think I saw that 5% of those Bernie voters will vote for Trump.

 

The diehards can do what they will. Bernie won 13 million some votes in the primary. Winning a general generally portends 60 or 70 million. If you add ALL of his voters to her 16 million votes, she's not even halfway there. She's not winning this election on the backs of Sanders voters anyway you slice it. The election is won elsewhere.

 

I don't get the optics of appointing DWS to an honorary (likely cushy do-nothing) position. But I doubt it's a key position. They can't be politically dumb enough to give her any kind of public visibility after all of this.

 

But I stand by my assertion. I feel awful for Bernie about all of this. It's wrong and it stinks. I can't stand DWS. But he ran the weaker campaign and he lost, accordingly. And no, I still don't think this drastically changes anything come November.

 

 

Hmm, I guess I would not discount the impact of Bernie supporters choose other options besides joining Team Hillary. In a typical election 60 to 70 million votes would win the Presidency. IN 2016, with 2 outside parties already getting a combined 12-15% of the vote (Johnson and Stein), the winner of this election may not get to 60 million votes, and the difference between the Hillary and Trump could be less than 5 million votes. If that is the case, Bernie's 13 million votes could play a role. I personally do not think he ran the weaker campaign. He was up against a juggneraut operation that had the backing of all the establishment and the DNC and came extremely close to winning. Had he started out with a 600 superdelegate lead before the first state voted, how do you think the narrative throughout the entire campaign would have differed?

[zoogs]

A party establishment favored an establishment candidate over a total outsider in their own nomination process, that by definition -- superdelegates -- is a mix of public polls and party elite wishes?

 

Wow!

 

They were as neutral as Obama was in primary season, to what should be nobody's surprise. As neutral as the GOP establishment was -- too bad they didn't succeed in keeping control.

 

You *should* have to win over party insiders, too, to secure their nomination. Bernie didn't. Obama, as an outsider and an upstart, did. Clinton started out last time with a big lead in establishment backing, but Obama won races and swayed superdelegates. Probably by being an actual Democrat.

[HuskerNation1]

A party establishment favored an establishment candidate over a total outsider in their own nomination process, that by definition -- superdelegates -- is a mix of public polls and party elite wishes?

 

Wow!

 

They were as neutral as Obama was in primary season, to what should be nobody's surprise. As neutral as the GOP establishment was -- too bad they didn't succeed in keeping control.

 

You *should* have to win over party insiders, too, to secure their nomination. Bernie didn't. Obama, as an outsider and an upstart, did. Clinton started out last time with a big lead in establishment backing, but Obama won races and swayed superdelegates. Probably by being an actual Democrat.

 

For starters, in 2008, the breakdown of superdelegates between Obama and Hillary was nearly even when the first couple states voted, so it wasn't as if one candidate had an insurmountable lead from the get go. Second, this whole notion that any candidate can start with a commanding delegate lead before one ballot has been cast does not seem very democratic (small D). Obama also was not up against a DNC that was solely in the tank for Hillary in 2008, AND Obama was a media darling which did more to help him than anything. Bernie was a nice story for the media but not a darling like Obama was in 2008 being the first black to have a good chance at a major party nomination...somehow being the first socialist doesn't seem as appealing to even the far left media. Could Bernie have done more along the way...perhaps, but it still doesn't negate the fact that the Democratic primaries were rigged against him.

 

I do wish that Trump was not the Republican nominee, but I also have to respect Priebus and the RNC for keeping it a fair process and having the candidate that received more votes than any other in GOP history become the nominee (and without superdelegates). The success of Trump and Bernie highlights the desire in this country to have someone speak out against the establishment, and with Trump being a true outsider, he is going to have a good chance of winning in November with an electorate that despises Washington career politicians.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

If Trump's hope for November lies in swaying people who despise corrupt politicians, he's been running his campaign the entirely wrong way.

[Landlord]

A party establishment favored an establishment candidate over a total outsider in their own nomination process, that by definition -- superdelegates -- is a mix of public polls and party elite wishes?

 

Wow!

 

 

 

And then that party repeatedly promised how they were definitely neutral, while trying to hide debates in bad rating hours, and also communicating with major news networks to influence the news.

 

Non-sarcastic wow.

[zoogs]

Y'know, I'm not saying that there's nothing to criticize about how they went about things. A

 

But it just doesn't make these DNC operators the super-villains you're making them out to be. And it hardly begins to place the two prospects before us on a level playing field, though plenty of people, particularly Trump backers, would sure like to welcome you aboard.

 

I'm all for a healthier nomination process, by the way. We've learned a lot about the pitfalls and oddities of the status quo this year. I'm happy to discuss them.

 

If you're on the lookout for a pristine political party, you might be looking a long time. They're all self-advertising machines that will use whatever pull they have to control their messaging.

[NM11046]

Perhaps Bill Clinton will change things tonight, but it appears that the Democratic party has lost touch with reality. Last week Obama gave a speech that stated that there is not that much violence or terrorism going on in the world right now, and what was stated at the RNC doesn't jive with the American people. Then yesterday in the first day of the DNC, there were 61 speeches, and not a single speech mentioned the words ISIS once. How does that happen? And now tonight the Dems are making a big push for Black Lives Matter including bringing Michael Brown's mom on stage...her son was shown to have been taking aggressive actions toward law enforcement, yet the Dems continue to push the narrative that the cops are bad. I am sure there are better examples of where it was 100% certain the cop was in the wrong, yet they are bringing up this toxic Ferguson racial incident to help get their black voters energized. I really don't know what the Democratic party stands for anymore.

I have yet to watch all the speeches, but what I can say, is that the CANDIDATE will likely take some time to outline what she is going to do and HOW she is going to do it (did the other guy ever share the how's for anything btw?) when she speaks. The speakers leading up to her are there to introduce her and her vision, history and skills.

 

Typically national conventions are about instilling hope and sharing the qualifications of the candidate, not spending the two-three days leading up to that person's speech fear mongering and instilling despair into the country. Last week's of course, spent a lot more time with two bit tv stars and family members teeing up the crowd for Trumps catchy sound bites. From my memory, that isn't typical.

[huskerfan2000]

The US is supposed to be a Representative Republic. Meaning, the people are supposed to vote to see who they want representing them in Washington.

 

Right now, at least as proven in the Democratic party, that is a total sham.

 

+1

 

We can look all across this nation of democratic controlled cities that are failing, this is exactly why Trump has the support he does. Because democratic policies are failures.

This country will collapse if we continue down this path, and I don't care who is the president.

[Red Five]

 

The US is supposed to be a Representative Republic. Meaning, the people are supposed to vote to see who they want representing them in Washington.

 

Right now, at least as proven in the Democratic party, that is a total sham.

 

+1

 

We can look all across this nation of democratic controlled cities that are failing, this is exactly why Trump has the support he does. Because democratic policies are failures.

This country will collapse if we continue down this path, and I don't care who is the president.

 

 

Yup. Everyone should strive to be like Kansas and their great conservative movement that Brownback enacted.